Fight to Win or Fight Not to
Lose?
You
hear a lot of martial artists,
cops and soldiers discussing
how important it is to keep an
"offensive mindset" in personal
combat.
You
hear from others who maintain
that you should not strike the
first blow -- you should avoid,
evade and keep your defenses
intact.
But
which is really the best mindset
for self-defense?
Let's take a look at what the
U.S. Marine Corps -- a group
that has some expertise in the
area of fighting -- has to say
on the subject:
"The offense and defense are
neither mutually exclusive nor
clearly distinct; as we will
see, each includes elements of
the other.
"The offense contributes
striking power. The offense
generally has as its aim some
positive gain; it is through the
offense that we seek to impose
some design on the enemy. The
defense, on the other hand,
contributes resisting power, the
ability to preserve and protect
oneself. Thus, the defense
generally has a negative aim,
that of resisting the enemy's
will.
"The defense is inherently the
stronger form of combat. Were
this not the case, there would
be no reason ever to assume the
defensive. The offense, with
its positive aim, would always
be preferable. But in fact, if
we are weaker than our enemy, we
assume the defensive to
compensate for our weakness.
Similarly, if we are to mount an
offensive to impose our will, we
must develop enough force to
overcome the inherent
superiority of the enemy's
defense."
U.S. Marine Corps Book of
Strategy
Hmm. The Marines think that
defense is "inherently" stronger
than offense, especially if you
are weaker than your enemy. If
we assume that your attacker is
going to be bigger, tougher,
stronger, meaner, and have the
element of surprise -- then
adopting a defensive strategy is
probably a good move. This
would be the fight-not-to-lose
school. If your defense is
strong enough then the attacker
may be forced to withdraw simply
because time is working against
him...his chances of being
caught increase as you
successfully defend against his
attacks.
But, the other school of thought
-- the fight-to-win faction --
says that to drive off an
attacker or to get them to quit
attacking, you're going to have
to deliver some pain at some
point. Otherwise, why wouldn't
the attacker just keep
attacking, even if your defense
is superior? You have to put
the opponent at risk and make
him adopt a defensive
posture.
So,
should you fight not to lose or
fight to win?
I
think a good determinant is
going to revolve around a number
of items:
-
Your mission. Are
you a cop charged with
pursuing and arresting a
subject? Are you a soldier
on a combat assignment or a
peacekeeping assignment? Are
you a protection agent
charged with the safety of a
person? Are you a citizen
going about normal, routine
activities?
-
Your training. Are
you an ex-Navy SEAL? Are
you a boxer? An Aikido
practitioner? Or, again,
are you a citizen that has
no formal training?
-
Your physical attributes.
Are you considered a young,
large, athletic person? Or
an older, smaller, couch
potato? Are you a
fast-twitch person or a
slow-twitch person (I'm
referring to your body's
bias towards speed and
strength or towards
endurance)?
-
Your temperament.
Are you fiery and aggressive
by nature? Are you calm
during a crisis? Or are you
passive and shy by nature?
Do you have a heightened
sense of justice?
There are numerous attributes
and conditions that could change
depending on the circumstances.
For example, a small, passive
person could become an absolute
tiger if something supremely
important to them was
sufficiently threatened. This
could be the mother whose
children are in danger. It
could be the normally quiet, shy
person who ends up performing
heroically when they are
outraged by the situation.
But, generally, I would contend
that the offensive mindset
is going to work for the person
who:
-
Has a distinct mission to
subdue, arrest or destroy
bad guys;
-
Is highly trained in an
offensive art or system;
-
Is physically strong and
fast;
-
Is aggressive.
I
would contend that a
defensive mindset is going
to work for those who:
-
Primarily responsible for
protecting others (either
professionally as close
protection operators or
non-professionally as family
members);
-
Has training in an art or
system that is primarily
defensive oriented or has
little or no training
whatsoever;
-
Is limited physically in
areas of strength and speed
due to factors like body
composition, sex or age;
-
Is more restrained or less
aggressive by nature.
But, in the final analysis, you
need to have the ability and the
option of moving fluidly from
defense to offense in any
encounter. There are concepts
like evasion, counterattacks,
pre-emptive strikes,
immobilization, incapacitation
and, yes, even the employment of
lethal force that the
well-prepared person needs to be
able to employ.
Hey, we never said this
self-defense thing was going to
be easy!
Brad Parker
|